Can someone show me evidence of speciation, from one kind to another

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: borntowatch

I studied env.science bsc..When i first started i was told about a moth in the uk that changed colour over time due to pollution by the end of the course they decided it was a different species. No case of evolution.

Evolution is not empirical science you cannot put it in a test tube and observe and repeat. Evolution is a best fit story with a lot of bits missing. One day peeps wll see that theres a intelligence in nature and all these species are an expression of that thought.

purp.

The Peppered Moth colour change that you refer to, have never been cited as speciation. The change in population density from primarily light, to primarily dark Peppered Moths demonstrates how environmental conditions can impact a population. if anything, its a small scale demonstration of "survival of the fittest"

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
You're right - you have no excuse not to learn from history, which shows us that lack of a better theory is no reason to cling to a flawed/incomplete theory. Like peasants of centuries past, you put all your faith in scientists (priests) and the scientific community (church) while forming very few thoughts on your own. After all, the church...err, scientific community...could never be wrong!

Priests never had evidence for their claims, their claims always required faith as there wasn't ever a good reason to believe them. Science however has evidence for its claims and they can be verified by anyone and so there's a very good reason to believe them....if this is how you think science works then no wonder you're confused...

Why do you assume I believe in creation? Simply because I don't buy into modern theories of random evolution? Only fools deal in absolutes. Theories are not limited to what you have heard before. There are alternatives to creation and evolution.

Because you posted:

I was a student of science long before I began to entertain any notions of spirituality or creation. If you were to read my post history, you would see that I slways approach these topics from a scientific viewpoint and not a faith-based one.

So ID was an accurate description of what you claimed to do no?

Think before you post and maybe things won't fly over your head as often. 51% is the minimum for a majority. With that in mind, you should be able to understand what I meant. Science is not a democracy; theories do not become laws due to majority rule. This would not be the first time a majority of scientists have been wrong nor will it be the last.

Ah so what you meant to say was 'although the scientific consensus is 99.9999% in favor of evolution, 51% is enough for a majority rule'? not that it matters at all....

There are mountains of reasons as to why the percentage is so high, popularity has nothing to do with it.

Either you don't know what speciation is or you're the one spreading disinformation. Not one case of random mutation significant enough to create a new species has been documented.

I'm sure you read the OP...just like I 'read' To Kill a Mockingbird in elementary school.

You claimed that the OP showed that evolution has significant short-comings, specifically that speciation hasn't been observed and this is a flat-out lie. If you want to argue from a semantics point of view on wheat the term species does or does not describe then you're on a fools errand. But we're well versed on such creationists tactics and they do not hold much water with anyone apart from other creationists...or those that compare ToE with the flat earth hypothesis...

If you didn't understand TKAMB at school, that's......unfortunate.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What you call evidence of speciation, I call microevolution. There is no doubt that mutations occur and species can change slightly over many generations. That is all we have proof of in regard to evolution. Science 'talks about' speciation because it has become obvious that without rapid, major genetic changes occurring from time to time, evolution does not explain the diversity of life on Earth. Kind of like the big bang concept, speciation is an assumption made from the few observations we can make. The assumption is necessary to maintain the integrity of the theory, so everyone just accepts the whole thing because a majority of the scientific community puts their stamp on it. This, despite no one having ever documented a natural mutation significant enough to be called speciation.

We do have evidence for evolution
Long term E. Coli experiemnt. Besides this evidence, I'm not sure why you would think that so many mutations can't add up to create species to species changes. It's just a process of long term accumulation of mutations. Explain to me what kind of barrier prevents this from occurring.

All your talk about genetics and medicine has me a bit confused. These sciences have a basis in heredity, not evolution. You seem to be conflating a lot of concepts with evolution.

No, they DEFINATELY have a basis in evolution Genetics & Mutations - How Genetic Mutations Drive Evolution
Evolution in Medicine

Personal attacks and calls for censorship?? I often agree with you, Krazy, but dude...you're being very un-dude.

I know I'm not usually like this, but he is endlessly frustrating to talk to. I feel like its like talking to a parrot. He says things but never responds to what you say.

a reply to: borntowatch

Is there any particular reason why you're unable or unwilling to define what you mean by "kind" in a clear and objective way? Because, until you do, any response is going to be firing blind at an unknown target. And that's assuming you're being honest in your question. If you're being dishonest, and your more recent post history suggests that you're really not interested in an answer, then any response is going to be met with a moving goalpost. Or maybe just you flat out ignoring any evidence that's presented which conflicts with your fundamentalist Christian view of reality. Again, it would save everyone lots of time and effort if you just admitted that, like your countryman Ken Ham, no evidence will ever convince you that your literal interpretation of the Bible is indefensible in terms of observed, testable, and reproducible science.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

Is there any particular reason why you're unable or unwilling to define what you mean by "kind" in a clear and objective way? Because, until you do, any response is going to be firing blind at an unknown target. And that's assuming you're being honest in your question. If you're being dishonest, and your more recent post history suggests that you're really not interested in an answer, then any response is going to be met with a moving goalpost. Or maybe just you flat out ignoring any evidence that's presented which conflicts with your fundamentalist Christian view of reality. Again, it would save everyone lots of time and effort if you just admitted that, like your countryman Ken Ham, no evidence will ever convince you that your literal interpretation of the Bible is indefensible in terms of observed, testable, and reproducible science.

Let me see if I can say something intelligent and make a statement but still avoid this question.


Move the goal posts? If this was as simple as a sport where learning new information was as simple as chasing down the clock, to score as many goals as possible and allow a fair and just arbiter decide a foul then goal post moving yeah

In Darwins time they had microscopes that didnt show the complexity of DNA, would Darwin seeing the complexity of DNA still authored his book?

and what if my definition came from a Christian basis, it would be howled at and dismissed in ridicule.

Many scholars differentiate what a kind is and I am asked to give you mine.

I guess you will have to live with the simple fact that I dont know, but lets just say we will aim for the least complex change to start.

Anything but a weed to a weed, bacteria to bacteria or a K9 to a K9, the principle must be from a cat to a dog, cow to a sheep, one distinct animal to another, not a version of a type.
I dont have anything better to offer, the game doesn't have goal posts

a reply to: borntowatch

Lol there is plenty of evidence. That's why evolution is science. I'm going to spend some time reading this thread to see how many legitimate sources you discredit.

a reply to: borntowatch

Anything but a weed to a weed, bacteria to bacteria or a K9 to a K9, the principle must be from a cat to a dog, cow to a sheep, one distinct animal to another, not a version of a type.

Okay, but you seem to not understand that speciation can and often occur within a single population group (let's call it species "A"). When a single population is split into two (due to perhaps barriers like mountains or deserts), and those two groups can no longer intermingle, genetic drift can lead that single species to split, becoming two species - two species that can no longer mate. Species "A" is still around, but now there is a species "B." Both will still be of the same genus (i.e., "bird" or "turtle") but due to mutations and genetic drift, they've become distinct species, as classically defined. (there's other causes that lead to speciation, but this is one of them).

Because it can take hundreds, or thousands, of generations for this to occur, it's very difficult to observe speciation in real time. Yet it HAS been observed. Microbial life offers the best examples, as thousands of generations can past quickly by human standards. A tortoise on the other hand has a very long generational span, making it exceptionally difficult to see something this. Some species are so well adapted, and have such a wide-ranging territory that the pace of evolution is incredibly slow, with little change occurring even after millions of years.

The fossil record is a great example of speciation, for instance feathered dinosaurs that eventually became the modern bird, or living examples showing speciation from some ancient now-extinct species, for instance an aquatic animal with vestigial limbs (i.e., whales).

You say "not a version or type," which is wholly ignorant. Science does not define a species by "version," nor "type." Genus is divided into species (and subspecies). See Biological classification, Species, and Subspecies.

What about dogs??? There's a bunch of speciation for you, of course with some help from us.

Also, they say whales evolved from land animals, and snakes must have evolved from lizards because they still have legbones.

a reply to: borntowatch

We know variations occur in nature, right? Certainly, all the time. Before you continue pondering, posing, or even arguing this loaded question, you should understand that "species" are human concepts and inventions, every single one. They are not grouped together based on some infallible, fundamental, unshakable, cosmic nature... they are grouped by whatever scientists want to group them by. visible traits are common but not always meaningful, and they are only one of many variables to consider. Scientists don't even agree on what a species is, that will depend on which "species concept" you are utilizing.Therefore there is no clear moment of change when everyone would agree that one species just became another. It doesn't exist in any real sense, if there was a god even he could not pinpoint it, because it is an arbitrary and purely retrospective distinction used to describe thousands of years of mutation, selection, and adaptation. There can be no divine barrier to variation at speciation.l if only for the simple reason that it is not anything really meaningful. In fact it's quite arbitrary. To answer your "question," I could show you countless examples of how evolution through natural selection has changed an organism into something entirely different and unique. It happens all the time in nature, in microbiology labs, at the dog breeders, buried in fossil evidence, but I won't waste my time. If you wanted to understand this concept you would research it. with help from experts/biologists/zoologists hopefully you would eventually understand this tiny bit of life science. Unfortunately, you're here to parrot a false idea, one that uses obfuscation, misrepresentation, misunderatanding, and sheer hubris to try and prove your whacky ideas. Maybe I am wrong, and it is a genuine inquiry. If so I would be glad to break things down again, and get this silly question you think is meaningful out of your head.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Many scholars differentiate what a kind is and I am asked to give you mine.

"Scholars" may argue over what kind something is.

Scientists do not. Scientists do not deal in kind, because it is a vague, useless and incredibly subjective term to use when discussing life.
Scientists use species, genus, class, family. These terms are incredibly clear, objective and understood. A scholar might say, "A dog is a kind of wolf." A scientist will say, "This species of A is in the same genus as B, both of which are in the family of C in the order of D etc etc."

I guess you will have to live with the simple fact that I dont know, but lets just say we will aim for the least complex change to start.

Least complex change?

Okay, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the primordial slime we eventually crawled out of, a single celled creature experienced a mutation which caused it to develop another cell within itself, thus becoming the first multicellular organism. Had that not happened, chances are life would have developed very differently, if at all.

Anything but a weed to a weed, bacteria to bacteria or a K9 to a K9, the principle must be from a cat to a dog, cow to a sheep, one distinct animal to another, not a version of a type.
I dont have anything better to offer, the game doesn't have goal posts

So, you're asking for a clear example of something which is impossible? Cats do not become dogs, they become different types of cats. They may become faster, bigger, stronger, weaker, smaller, fatter. They may lose their ears or tails, or gain more whiskers or longer teeth.

The fundamental problem with the question you've asked (aside from the fact you've made literally no effort to read the materials people have provided you with) is that the person asking is usually looking for a clear cut "A became B so there."
That is not how evolution works. A does not become B. B is usually a single individual amongst hundreds of thousands of A's. If whatever mutation caused B to be different is beneficial, B will be successful in passing on it's genes and one day, way after B has decomposed into elementary particles A has gone and B is left. And even then, thanks to genetics being incredibly cool and sometimes going all vogue, genes which were within A may reassert themselves temporarily, or permanently.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer


You say "not a version or type," which is wholly ignorant. Science does not define a species by "version," nor "type." Genus is divided into species (and subspecies). See Biological classification, Species, and Subspecies.

Big woop, science says, so what

I can find some scientists to scorn at what you say

There is no way of establishing THE truth, just your truth and I disagree with your truth.

Where is the crocoduck?

All you have is a few fossils that prove nothing and the millions of years rhetoric.

Thats not evidence, thats assumption, go read the thread where hounest people admit it seems vague and consider the folly of thinking you know better.

Whats the Whales vestigial organ, why not say what you have instead of hiding it, scared?

a reply to: borntowatch

The pelvic bone in whales has been provided as vestigial evidence , the primary use was the manipulation of the lower limbs for walking on dry land. I did provide a link in which scientists have found direct links (including fossil records) that was a land based animal who over time evolved into a sea dwelling mammal.

If there is a strong counter argument against evolution, backed up by scientific study and supported by credible evidence, could you please provide any links to add weight to your position against the current main stream theories.

a reply to: borntowatch

YOU have some cheek you ask for evidence and are such a lazy @#$! you won't make the effort to read it .

I will make a prediction that if some guy stands in front of you and talks about a being that is supposed to have created everything YOU will believe that with absolutely NO EVIDENCE !!!

originally posted by: thepitpony
a reply to: borntowatch

The pelvic bone in whales has been provided as vestigial evidence , the primary use was the manipulation of the lower limbs for walking on dry land. I did provide a link in which scientists have found direct links (including fossil records) that was a land based animal who over time evolved into a sea dwelling mammal.

If there is a strong counter argument against evolution, backed up by scientific study and supported by credible evidence, could you please provide any links to add weight to your position against the current main stream theories.

Seriously that is just so poor
that is just so, so, so wrong in so many ways. if you seriously believe that then I am afraid you are so brainwashed.
Just consider, just consider searching some serious scientific papers to find why those bones are not vestigial.

I am not embarassed for you though I think i should be.
I am just in awe of how blindly you follow what you are taught by those you see as above you.

Please consider doing some research

You know the human tailbone is not vestigial, its important for childbirth and bowel movements, its an anchor for muscle, the vestigial whale bones do the same for a whale. They are very important bones, not vestigial at all.

I am sad you are so gullible to accept everything a pro evolutionist scientist tells you.

Please do some research of your own to see the lie you have accepted about whales vestigial legs is just a lie to suck people into.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: borntowatch

YOU have some cheek you ask for evidence and are such a lazy @#$! you won't make the effort to read it .

I will make a prediction that if some guy stands in front of you and talks about a being that is supposed to have created everything YOU will believe that with absolutely NO EVIDENCE !!!

I have read enough to see not one person has the courage to explain in their own terms why they think evolution is real, all they do is link websites and copy and paste walls of texts to hide their ignorance.

Just like you, offer nothing of value, just take a couple of limp wristed swings over the internet

I accept mine is a faith, you on the other hand scream science that like whales "vestigial legs" is just a baseless lie.

Your evolution beliefs are a faith, accept it and move on.

a reply to: Gideon70

He is baiting everybody into falling for his poorly hidden agenda

Yeah, that is exactly what my thoughts are. This thread will go nowhere and eventually peter out like all the other ones because he doesn't want a thoughtful, intelligent discussion.

Where is the crocoduck?

And that solidifies my belief (and should be sufficient evidence for everyone else) that there's nothing more to discuss with the OP of this thread.

a reply to: borntowatch

I will take up the challenge and have a go in my own terms. Evolution is a product of a species adapting through eons of time to the progresive changing environments and conditions this planet underwent through its lifetime, those who delivered (or evolved) the strongest or most beneficial adaptations to survive environments flourished.

That is my take, can we please have your own so we can carry this discussion on.

a reply to: borntowatch

So a complex or essential function for the whales vestigial limbs has been shown to exist?

Can you produce a verified source for this?

Maybe one that isn't a creationist/ID/anti-evolution page?

quoting OP



I have read enough to see not one person has the courage to explain in their own terms why they think evolution is real, all they do is link websites and copy and paste walls of texts to hide their ignorance.

Just like you, offer nothing of value, just take a couple of limp wristed swings over the internet

I accept mine is a faith, you on the other hand scream science that like whales "vestigial legs" is just a baseless lie.

Your evolution beliefs are a faith, accept it and move on.
end quote

HERES THE ISSUE

religion want "equal-time" with science since both are just "world views" and one isnt really any dif than the other.

after all we SCIENCE people do the same things that the religion people do, we BELIEVE things without EVIDENCE.

this hardcore mistake is really very common in the religious community because of the lack of critical thinking skills within that demographic.